User talk:Joshua Jonathan

For convenience: {{mdf|1=[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan]]|2=reason, ~~~~}}

Move

The page Empuraan was moved by a new user without any explanation. L2: Empuraan is a stylization, not the actual title (onscreen title is Empuraan - Lucifer 2). Can you move that to its original title? The user also started a page with an arbitrary title L Franchise (film series). The makers has not said anywhere that the franchise's title is "L". Besides, title is also in incorrect format - the disambiguation "franchise" is followed by another disambiguation "film series". 2409:4073:4D1C:705:6C1D:8689:4ACA:6281 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for help

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I would like to thank You very much for Your help in supporting my edit on Paul the Apostle. I am very sad that some editors are rude here, reverting any edit which does not comply with their subjective criteria which these editors subjectively pretend as if they are official WP rules for editing. But it is only their interpretation of WP rules

Also my edit on Kings of Israel and Judah was reverted on the basis of violation of "No original research" rule. But I added referenced sources, primary as well as secondary sources, for my edit containing "good and bad kings of Israel and Judah", so I am convinced that I did not break any original research rule.

WP says:

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.

My edit on good/bad kings fulfills these WP criteria so my edit should not have been deleted. My edit is not my original research. I added primary and also secondary sources. Please, help me with my edit in article on Kings of Israel and Judah as well. Thank You very much in advance. RoccoPexeso (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to explain "original research" to Joshua Jonathan, or to me. What's rude, RoccoPexeso, is edit warring. Your edit on that Good Kings article is terrible, and God only knows what kind of secondary source this is. So, yes, there are in fact rules, esp. for secondary sources: we like peer-reviewed sources, and we like em reliable. Primary sources cannot, for instance, verify that anything is worth citing. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, not only God. I do too. So can you. :) Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, so we learned it's a guy's personal bible blog? :) Drmies (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the blogging pastor is much more humble of his work ("I am not a biblical scholar, nor do I have a history degree.", "designation for each of the reign of the kings is clearly my subjective opinion") than the editor citing him! Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least he's married. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad not only God keeps an eye on my talkpage ;) @Drmies: as fvor the question why being a pillar should be mentioned, the obvious reason is that it gave more authority to Paul's defiant stance, I think. Kind of PR, so to speak. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my edit on Good/bad kings refers to ranking of kings according to Bible itself, this judging of kings as good/bad can be found in the Bible itself, so any secondary source would be redundant and useless. Even if such a secondary source were to be found, it would only repeat what a primary source - the Bible - has already said. Simultaneously, it is also not my original research, this knowledge comes from Bible. Every editor should be free here in WP to add any information which supplement existing article and thus increase its informative value for all future WP readers. This should be primary goal for all WP editors. In my edit itself the sentence was written "The Bible judges all kings of Israel and Judah by their attitude ..." Why should there be any WP rules which limit editors in their effort to increase of informative value of existing WP article ? Such WP rule would only rob WP articles of their informational value. Plus, some editors interpret WP rules very narrowly and subjectively, and their interpretations again needlessly rob WP articles of their informative value. RoccoPexeso (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoccoPexeso, I wonder what bible you are reading. One that has only clear-cut answers, no questions, no need for interpretation or eschatology. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Drmies, Abecedare, or you want a source that isn't someone's 'blog, there is Puskas & Reasoner 2013, pp. 140–141. Not only does it have footnotes with further sources, and not only is it an academic work, but it also points out reasons that Acts and Galations might not be accounts of the same meeting, and mentions the pillars with references to the Galatians account. I'm sure that it's possible to go even further from there. To Polhill 1999, p. 110–119 for starters, which has footnotes and further reading for the view that does not identify the two meetings, the latter including Barrett 1953, which let's say touches upon the subject of Paul and pillars, and some of the subtleties of the Greek that are lost in translation. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puskas, Charles B.; Reasoner, Mark (2013). "The Letter to the Galatians". The Letters of Paul: An Introduction. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814680636.
Polhill, John B. (1999). "Paul defends his Gentile mission". Paul and His Letters. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 9780805410976. OL 38532M.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley (1953). "Paul and the 'Pillar' Apostles". In Sevenster, Jan Nicolaas; van Unnik, Willem Cornelis (eds.). Studia Paulina in honorem Jr. de Zwaan. Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn. pp. 1–19.

Criticism of Swaminarayan sect

Why did you revert the article? I added new content that emerged only after the last redirect was created. While I am aware of the talk page discussion, I would note that the article version in my edit is not the same as the one that was being discussed there. I would recommend you to take it to WP:AFD if you believe this subject does not need a separate article. Until then, you should also restore this link at Swaminarayan#Legacy. Thanks. Wareon (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wareon: the criticism is integrated in the Swaminarayan-page; there's no need for a separate page. And you also removed info, without any explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Get Real”

Hey Joshua, I really don't know what you're referring to with this:

"Reverted 2 edits by Quill Thrills (talk): Get real. It's not a matter of 'also', it's a matter of 'though': Brahmanic authors appropriating non-Brahmanic culture, to promote their own worldview. You're substantially altering the meaning of the text. Joshua Jonathan DISPLAYED EDIT Apr 6, 2025 at 2:25 PM →top: helping you out, though you probably know very well what's the issue here"

So please educate me. I'm trying to simplify language in an intro so non specialists can actually comprehend. How many high schoolers, college students, or general audience of Wikipedia go on the Gita page and understand the term Brahmanic? If you want to differentiate the two in a nuanced way why not do it lower down rather than the intro?

Also based on the kind of accusatory tone you used above it seems to be a hot button issue to you.

I'm not even aware this is a controversial term and wasn't aware it's possible to say the authors of a text as old as the Gita - when they draw on an idea like Dharma that they were engaging in "appropriation". That sounds absurd when I even type it out. When's the last time a Roman got seriously accused of "appropriation" of Greek culture haha. That's just history blending ideas and one tradition drawing from another as has happened millions of times over in all cultures. Am I misunderstanding your view? QuillThrills (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the whole article? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sure did and none of it explains why someone living in 2025 should be offended by removing actually quite repetitive claims throughout the article that a 2000 year old text has "appropriated" something i assume you must strongly identify with judging by your tone earlier. at some point harping on this brahmanism and not brahmanism thing isnt helpful to the average reader of an encyclopedia article on the Gita. it would be cool if you wanted to start a blog about it, but just seems like undue weight to a somewhat esoteric idea for a wikipedia article... QuillThrills (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "esoteric"; it's a main feature of the text, as explained in the body of the article, and at the talkpage. Let's continue there. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help, sorry

See the note at the top of my usertalk. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: no problem; thanks for reaching out. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]